October Term 2010 · Docket 09-996
Does a state court need to state a reason when rejecting a federal claim?
the sides that brought the case argue California courts must explain why they dismiss federal claims. the opposing sides say courts can reject claims without stating a reason.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Todd Marshall argued Martin never explained his delay.
Todd Marshall said California's rule requires reasonable diligence.
Todd Bigelow argued state rules must be firmly established.
Todd Bigelow said this prevents states from ignoring federal rights.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 26-46 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 26-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 40-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 40-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 28-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 28-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 30-38 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 30-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 18-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 48-12 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 48-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-14 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 28-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 28-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 44-48 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 44-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 8-12
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether state courts must provide a reason when they dismiss federal claims. the sides that brought the case seek a clear explanation to ensure fair review. the opposing sides want courts to keep discretion in how they handle these dismissals.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 26-46 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 26-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 29, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want state courts to state a reason when dismissing federal claims.
the opposing sides want state courts to dismiss claims without stating a reason.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 26-46 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 26-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue state courts must firmly establish and regularly follow their rules.
the opposing sides argue California's timeliness rule only requires reasonable diligence.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 26-46 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 26-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked how to know if a dismissal is for time bar reasons.
Justice Sotomayor asked how to know if a court avoids hard federal questions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 40-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 40-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 28-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 28-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 30-38 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 30-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 18-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 48-12 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 48-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-14 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 28-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 28-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 44-48 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 44-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 8-12
Why it matters
This dispute affects how state courts handle federal rights. It shapes the standard for reviewing state court decisions. It impacts the balance between state and federal authority.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 26-46 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 26-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 40-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 40-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 28-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 28-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 30-38 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 30-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 18-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 48-12 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 48-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-14 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 28-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 28-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 44-48 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 44-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 8-12
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 26-46 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 26-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 26-46 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 26-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.